At the end of William Faulkner’s brilliant 1936 novel Absalom, Absalom!, Quentin Compson is asked why he hates the South, which leads to one of the most famous last paragraphs in American literature:

“I don’t hate it,” Quentin said, quickly, at once, immediately; “I don’t hate it,” he said. I don’t hate it, he thought, panting in the cold air, the iron New England dark: I don’t. I don’t! I don’t hate it! I don’t hate it!

Of course, as readers we know it’s quite clear Quentin’s repeated protests leave open the interpretation that he does, in fact, hate the South.

I was reminded of the novel’s famous paragraph after reading through an introduced bill by state Sen. Josh Brecheen’s that “does not propose that schools teach creationism or intelligent design” and “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine or set of religious beliefs.” The bill also notes, “This act is modeled on a Louisiana law which has not been invalidated by the highest court of the State of Louisiana or a federal district court. “ Does not. Shall not. Has not.

Just like Compson, Brecheen leaves the reader with an open interpretation: Why the repetition? Why refer to a law “that has not been invalidated” as a framework for a new law that is definitely not about something—intelligent design--that actually HAS been judicially invalidated. This is not about promoting intelligent design or creationism. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not! It’s not!

What Senate Bill 1742 proposes is this: The State Board of Education can help teachers promote “critical thinking, logical analysis, open and objective discussion of scientific theories including, but not limited to, evolution, the origin of life, global warming, and human cloning.” In other words, it’s absolutely not, and I mean absolutely absolutely not, about introducing discredited ideas such as intelligent design in the classroom as an alternative to the theory of evolution, which is one of the bedrocks of biological science.

Again, the bill is absolutely absolutely not about challenging the theory of evolution even though Brecheen, a Republican, is on record arguing, “Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth.”

Those ideologues and purveyors of lies include high school teachers, college professors and the vast majority of scientists in the world.

Still, the bill is not (it’s not! it’s not!) a backdoor attempt to attack the theory of evolution or promote creationism.

I don’t oppose bills like this one. I really don’t. I don’t! I don’t! I don’t!

I’ve been trying to respond to each of The Oklahoman editorials, published on NewsOK.com, that criticize that Occupy Wall Street movement to highlight the sheer inanity and cluelessness of perhaps the most conservative newspaper in the country.

The newspaper, which is now owned by Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz, doesn’t “get” the Occupy movement, and it has undoubtedly spent thousands of words proving it. But what the newspaper lacks in basic cultural understanding it makes up for in ad hominem, demeaning attacks on people who basically want a decent economic future for themselves.

The newspaper’s lastest inane offering (“Occupy protests to the contrary, bigger isn’t always badder,” Jan. 17, 2012) essentially argues that monopoly companies such as Walmart are good for the country, and it’s only a “naive and sometimes stupid strain of populism,” i.e. the Occupy Movement, that would dare criticize them.

Here’s the telling paragraph in the commentary:

A local gadfly, speaking at an Occupy OKC rally late last year, evoked this idiocy in urging his audience to shop only at small, locally owned businesses “and stay out of big box stores that feed the 1 percent and wreck local economies.”

Note the words “gadfly” and “idiocy” and the previously cited “stupid strain of populism,” which shows the editorial must rely on name-calling and demeaning language in an effort to make a point, which is obviously strained. In the end, the editorial’s argument is archaic in its simplicity: Walmart good, protesters bad. The words in italic are a mimic of the editorial’s ending, which goes “Two stores good, 400 better.”

The criticism of Walmart has a long history, and I won’t spend much time rehashing the complaints, which center around the monopoly’s impact on communities around the country. The basic narrative, given by the company’s detractors, is that Walmart pushes out independent businesses in communities and pays extremely low wages. A good source of information for this type of criticism, which has cultural validity and is remarkable for its contemporary importance, is Walmart Watch. Here’s an example of the arguments presented on the site:

From small businesses to major chains, all grocery and retail establishments that compete with Walmart are impacted by the company. Competitors are often forced to lower wages and standards. By using a model based on low-wages, high-efficiency transportation, and imported goods, Walmart has a history of destroying once thriving downtowns across rural America.

That the local editorial didn’t refer significantly to the huge, historical body of Walmart criticism is fairly typical because the fallacy of omission is one of the newspaper’s best weapons in protecting the wealthiest 1 percent from any critique. But, once again, the newspaper misses the most salient point of the Occupy Movement, which is 99 percent of the country is essentially enslaved politically and economically by the top 1 percent. That’s an argument that’s been made here and across the country, and not just among Occupy protesters. The great wealth disparity in this country threatens democracy, and, paradoxically, capitalism itself.

So, given what the movement is really about, here’s some information unlikely to be found on The Oklahoman editorial page when it criticizes the “idiocy” of the “naïve” protesters and their “stupid strain of populism.” According to Wikipedia, the three children of Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, using 2011 numbers, are worth the following: Alice Walton, $20.9 billion, S. Robson Walton, $21 billion and Jim Walton, $21.3 billion.

As of 2010, Anschutz, the new owner of The Oklahoman, is worth $7 billion, according to the site.

It’s not often that members of Oklahoma’s ultra-conservative Congressional delegation, including U.S. Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, and I agree on an issue, but the growing opposition to the SOPA and PIPA bills has created an interesting coalition of disparate proportions.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), pending in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), pending in the U.S. Senate, are terrible bills that obviously threaten free speech in this country. Oklahoma’s Congressional delegation is waking up to that point, and we should support them on this extremely important issue.

The stated aim of the bills, which are supported by the movie industry, is to crackdown on Internet sites that inappropriately use or make available copyrighted material that illegally makes its way to other countries. The problem is the bills, in their current form, give the federal government sweeping powers to shut down web sites without due process. This is a direct violation of First-Amendment rights.

Most of those people opposed to the two measures also support a crackdown on the piracy and resale of copyrighted material, which means a tremendous loss of revenue to companies and even artists. But the bills are extreme measures that need rethinking and rewriting.

This is what Coburn, a Republican, had to say about PIPA as quoted in a NewsOK.com story:

You've got to stop online piracy, but you've got to do it in a way that doesn't affect First Amendment rights.

This is what Inhofe, also a Republican, had to say in a press release on the issue:

While I believe that the intellectual property rights of American companies deserve substantial protection under the law, S. 968, the PROTECT-IP Act, is not the answer to the problem of online counterfeiting and piracy. I share the concerns of America’s technology companies, industry leaders, and the many citizens who have voiced their concerns to my office. It is clear to me that this bill will inflict too heavy a burden on third-party non-infringing entities and could do serious harm to one of the last vestiges that is relatively free from government regulation, the Internet. When addressing intellectual property rights, Congress must be careful to also protect the freedom of speech and flow of information that the Internet provides. Additionally, I have concerns with creating yet another private right of action, which will be used by plaintiffs to stifle Internet innovation, and with requirements in the bill that could negatively impact the Internet’s reliability and performance.

U.S. Reps. Tom Cole, Frank Lucas and John Sullivan, all Republicans, have also expressed their concerns about the bills.

A blackout protest last week among web sites—Okie Funk included—forced many Washington politicians to rethink their support for the bill and some observers say the measures are probably dead or dormant for now. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has delayed the vote on PIPA, for example.

Here in Oklahoma, right now, Congressional Republicans are leading the opposition to the bills, making the same arguments of leading, national liberal groups, such as MoveOn.org, and the issue threatens to impact the national elections. As of now, Republicans seem to be gaining political traction from opposing the bills, but President Barack Obama has also expressed concerns over some components of the bills, which some argue could actually hurt his support in Hollywood.

In any event, Democrats need to express more vocal opposition to the bills, centering their concerns on protecting freedom of speech. If they fail to do so, it could damage the party’s election viability this year. If the Internet turns against Obama and other leading Democrats, it could—and I know this might seem overstated—help elect Republicans who oppose the measures. I do think this issue has that much potential on the national level.

As many people have written, this is a battle between New Media and Old Media, which really have much in common, but the bottom line is this: We’re not ever going to go back to an Internet-less world, with all its high-tech progress, futuristic potential and, yes, attendant problems and issues, such as piracy, spam and cyber security.

Old Media risks overplaying its hand and ending up without any new protections at all if it won’t compromise.